Obama's "missing" oil disaster review commitment

[Bragi]

Here's what the President said earlier this week on the review of the BP oil disaster:

We have an obligation to investigate what went wrong and to determine what reforms are needed so that we never have to experience a crisis like this again. If the laws on our books are insufficient to prevent such a spill, the laws must change. If oversight was inadequate to enforce these laws, oversight has to be reformed. If our laws were broken, leading to this death and destruction, my solemn pledge is that we will bring those responsible to justice on behalf of the victims of this catastrophe and the people of the Gulf region.

What's missing from this list of possible review outcomes is this:

"And, given the extreme consequences of any uncontrolled deepwater oil well failure, if our review shows that deepwater extraction cannot be done in a manner that will make uncontrolled deepsea oilwell failures in sensitive ocean and coastal areas impossible , then we will stop all such drilling, and not allow it to resume until we can guarantee zero risk of any future failures. The stakes are just too high to do otherwise."

Put simply, in describing his expectations of the review exercise, the one outcome Obama chooses not to mention is a finding that ultra deep drilling and extraction may be too inherently risky to continue using current technology, especially in acutely sensitive ocean and coastal areas.

I am deeply disturbed and saddened that this inherently sensible option appears to be off the table as far as the President is concerned. (I would welcome knowing of any statement I am missing where he includes the possibility of a permanent ban on at least some deepwater drilling being an option.)

- B

[Lerkfish]

1. no, I think youre reading that correctly. "reform" is not "prohibit"

good observation.

[Bragi]

2. That's my read...

Nothing I have heard from the President has suggested to me that he can even envision the possibility that deepwater extraction may simply be too inherently risky, especially in highly sensitive areas (like the Gulf, the arctic, etc.)

[karynnj]

3. Not completely - under the circumstances outlined, reform of the rules COULD equal prohibit

[Lerkfish]

4. I would disagree: nothing to reform if you eliminate the option.

[karynnj]

5. That's not what I am saying

1e Let's say that they find they can not drill safely in more than 200 ft of water. They can reform the rules adding in that there will be no drilling if the depth is greater than 200 ft.

That is reforming the overall off shore drilling rules - and it is eliminating drilling beyond 200 ft. (Now, I of course, have no idea what investigations will show and what Obama wants to do.